$1000 dollars for 200 extra 3dmarks

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Tegeril
Ok great, so it'll have supply... where is the demand?

"Build it and they will come" - providing its good, or so goes the old saying. The rumored RRP prices I've heard recently are $829 or $849, not $999.

I don't think we are going to see a traditional refresh from nvidia for G80. With double precision shaders due to arrive fall this year (G90?), this is as much as we are likely to see IMO, especially if it keeps R600 safely at bay as far as refreshing g80 goes (perhaps a metal layer respin or two if nvidia feels its warranted).

I don't think there is very much wastage of g80 cores at the moment (yields must be pretty good), nvidia appears in no hurry to move g80 to 80nm production so they are making plenty per core (Initially I though nvidia would want to migrate to the 80nm node as quickly as reasonably possible - it appears they are happy to be conservative with the process tech).

 

[BlizzardOne]

$849?? bargain! :disgust:

 

[Gstanfor]

No-ones forcing you to purchase it at gunpoint...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Cookie Monster beat me to it. (Ok to say)

gpu shot with rev info alternate image link. (Ok to say, great link)

I'm afraid those of you wanting this product to be a flop are likely to be disappointed. (Idiotic)

Looks like we have to teach you step by step. :roll:

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Cookie Monster beat me to it. (Ok to say)

gpu shot with rev info alternate image link. (Ok to say, great link)

I'm afraid those of you wanting this product to be a flop are likely to be disappointed. (Idiotic)

Looks like we have to teach you step by step. :roll:

I don't think he understands that we don't WANT it to fail -- it's just that most indications were (are?) that it would be limited quantity and that the price would be sky high.

G-stand, Your defense of the price @ $850 is rollo-like...

 

[Gstanfor]

I'm not defending the price. It will be priced wherever nvidia wants it to be priced. Do you with 0.8ns DDR3 memory and foundry respins are handed out free of charge like party favors? Its out of my ability (and yours too) to influence this. Either accept the pricing and the product or don't.

R600 will be waiting for the fanatics who hate having to purchase nvidia gear anyway and I'm glad of that. Would hate for anyone to think they actually *have* to buy nvidia if they don't want to.

 

[edmundoab]

For the 200 points thats u can't even notice, thats like $1000 in the bin !

 

[MadBoris]

oohhhh Is the next best thing since selling stuff in WOW for real money?

I would like to buy 500 extra virtual points in 3Dmark.
How much and where do I send the money order?

 

[CP5670]

Is this thing even going to be released into retail channels? Last I heard, only the big OEMs were going to get them, so if that's the case it makes no difference to us what the price is.

 

[RussianSensation]

Will this outperform 8800GTX SLi for almost the same price?

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Tegeril
Ok great, so it'll have supply... where is the demand?

QFT! I've been quite happy with my x1950xtx. There haven't been any games come out that make me go "Gosh this game is running slow, time for a new card." Of course the situation is different for those with older cards, but for me this Gen is kinda meh nice wonderful cards, but no reason for me to buy them. *shakes an angry fist at the game developers* >.< Give me something cool to play!

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: edmundoab
For the 200 points thats u can't even notice, thats like $1000 in the bin !

I think I'd be waiting for actual reviewed results before writing a product off on the strength (or lack thereof) of its results.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I'm not defending the price. It will be priced wherever nvidia wants it to be priced. Do you with 0.8ns DDR3 memory and foundry respins are handed out free of charge like party favors? Its out of my ability (and yours too) to influence this. Either accept the pricing and the product or don't.

R600 will be waiting for the fanatics who hate having to purchase nvidia gear anyway and I'm glad of that. Would hate for anyone to think they actually *have* to buy nvidia if they don't want to.

It's funny that an $850 card from nVidia that will barely outperform the old GTX is perfectly OK, but a $400 card from ATI that significantly outperforms the GTS and encroaches on the GTX is a card "for the fanatics." Irony at its finest. :disgust:

 

[Gstanfor]

Six months had traditionally been a product cycle where graphics cards are concerned. If you are going to turn up 6 months late, you'd better be capable of better than merely matching what the competition had on the market 6 months prior (and with blur-o-vision AA to boot) if you hope to compete.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Six months had traditionally been a product cycle where graphics cards are concerned. If you are going to turn up 6 months late, you'd better be capable of better than merely matching what the competition had on the market 6 months prior (and with blur-o-vision AA to boot) if you hope to compete.

For coming 6-7 months later than the GTX, the Ultra is going to be a pretty disappointing product as well. If it was going to fill the $600~ price market and the price on the GTX was going to drop, that would be perfect. But nVidia has gotten cocky and is going to charge an enormous sum for a SLIGHTLY FASTER card.

The HD 2900XT provides good performance in DX9 titles and from all indications it will be faster than the GTX, and probably the Ultra, in DX10 games like Crysis (from the developers THEMSELVES, the R600 is faster than the GTX in Crysis)

I believe the 8800 series is the best cards nVidia has had in quite a long time (GF4?), but they've gotten lazy since November. They've provided dismal driver support and not so great midrange parts. Also, I expected a move to 80nm and some serious performance gains by now. That looks like it's not coming... I doubt nVidia is going to launch the Ultra and then one month later launch 80nm high-end parts. It looks like it's going to be a while before we see another advancement from nVidia.

 

[Gstanfor]

according to rumors, the Ultra, when overclocked can be up to 37% faster than a GTX overclocked to the same level. Seems like it should be a decent advance for me (and why should nvidia show any more of their hand until R650 comes out mere months after R600, just like happened with R520/R580?)

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
according to rumors, the Ultra, when overclocked can be up to 37% faster than a GTX overclocked to the same level. Seems like it should be a decent advance for me (and why should nvidia show any more of their hand until R650 comes out mere months after R600, just like happened with R520/R580?)

Where are you seeing 37%? I've seen no (credible) rumor that suggests the Ultra is anything more than an overclocked GTX with faster memory and perhaps cherry picked cores. The most optimistic clocks I've seen are 650/2160. Where is this huge performance improvement coming from?

 

[Ackmed]

Ultra cards are not ment to be mainstream. And dont always outpace the previous card by all that much. I had a GF2, then a GF2 Pro, and then a GF2 Utra. I didnt see much speed increase, but I knew what I was getting. I actually got a speed decresae from my Ultra, to my GF3.. but thats another story. I did overclock the crap outta my GF2 Ultra to 315/513. 315 core was very high for the times.

That being said, unless the Ultra really puts some frames between the normal GTX's, its not going to be very attractive. You can already get a GTX with a clock rate of 626/2000. Sure the memory isnt as fast, but its also $600. If the Ultra is several hundered dollars more, and only a few frames faster, I cant see myself getting the Ultra. Unless the new memory really lets you overclock. As always, wait for real reviews with actual cards, before making a decision. I think it will be faster than what they show.

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Six months had traditionally been a product cycle where graphics cards are concerned. If you are going to turn up 6 months late, you'd better be capable of better than merely matching what the competition had on the market 6 months prior (and with blur-o-vision AA to boot) if you hope to compete.

The HD 2900XT provides good performance in DX9 titles and from all indications it will be faster than the GTX, and probably the Ultra, in DX10 games like Crysis (from the developers THEMSELVES, the R600 is faster than the GTX in Crysis)

Link please??

 

[Gstanfor]

The correct figure is 31% faster, sorry.

And ackmed is correct, like I said before in the thread, no-one is forcing you to purchase the Ultra, the GTX will still be for sale (or you can go prop AMD up - they'll thank you for it) if you are offended by the Ultra's price tag.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Ultra cards are not ment to be mainstream. And dont always outpace the previous card by all that much. I had a GF2, then a GF2 Pro, and then a GF2 Utra. I didnt see much speed increase, but I knew what I was getting. I actually got a speed decresae from my Ultra, to my GF3.. but thats another story. I did overclock the crap outta my GF2 Ultra to 315/513. 315 core was very high for the times.

That being said, unless the Ultra really puts some frames between the normal GTX's, its not going to be very attractive. You can already get a GTX with a clock rate of 626/2000. Sure the memory isnt as fast, but its also $600. If the Ultra is several hundered dollars more, and only a few frames faster, I cant see myself getting the Ultra. Unless the new memory really lets you overclock. As always, wait for real reviews with actual cards, before making a decision. I think it will be faster than what they show.

I think it will be faster than what X-Bit is showing, but I don't think it's going to be ANYTHING significant. We're not seeing a 7800GTX 512MB here... the 7800GTX 512 absolutely blew away the 7800GTX and boasted clockspeeds far higher than anything normal 7800GTX cards could reach. Performance in 2006 games is another story, but in 2005 it was the card everyone wanted.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Six months had traditionally been a product cycle where graphics cards are concerned. If you are going to turn up 6 months late, you'd better be capable of better than merely matching what the competition had on the market 6 months prior (and with blur-o-vision AA to boot) if you hope to compete.

The HD 2900XT provides good performance in DX9 titles and from all indications it will be faster than the GTX, and probably the Ultra, in DX10 games like Crysis (from the developers THEMSELVES, the R600 is faster than the GTX in Crysis)

Link please??

http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview...STARTPAGE=20&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
The correct figure is 31% faster, sorry.

And ackmed is correct, like I said before in the thread, no-one is forcing you to purchase the Ultra, the GTX will still be for sale (or you can go prop AMD up - they'll thank you for it) if you are offended by the Ultra's price tag.

How is it 31% faster? What info are you seeing that I haven't seen?

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Six months had traditionally been a product cycle where graphics cards are concerned. If you are going to turn up 6 months late, you'd better be capable of better than merely matching what the competition had on the market 6 months prior (and with blur-o-vision AA to boot) if you hope to compete.

The HD 2900XT provides good performance in DX9 titles and from all indications it will be faster than the GTX, and probably the Ultra, in DX10 games like Crysis (from the developers THEMSELVES, the R600 is faster than the GTX in Crysis)

Link please??

http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview...STARTPAGE=20&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

And yet, we don't get a link to him actually writing it. :disgust:

What did Crysis lead Developer (has the cards) say about the two (G80GTX and R600XT)?

And remember, Crysis is a DX9 game with an additional DirectX 10 codepath which will only help in getting better performance (gains) for the ones with DX10 cards.

28th April:
I'm gonna spit out a :disgust:very last detail ( before they get me behind the bars for disclosing information )

The 2900XTX is 4fps in front of the 8800GTX ( in average ) in Crysis ( information directly from a developer of the game )

The 2900XTX won't be the G80 killer that everybody was expecting, but it'll be in front in most cases, with little to good margins depending on the game and settings.

nVIDIA did a great job with the G80 this time, and the performance leap over the previous generation is huge and only compared to the R300 launch in the past

How am I supposed to believe a random quote on a forum? :disgust:

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: m21s

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Six months had traditionally been a product cycle where graphics cards are concerned. If you are going to turn up 6 months late, you'd better be capable of better than merely matching what the competition had on the market 6 months prior (and with blur-o-vision AA to boot) if you hope to compete.

The HD 2900XT provides good performance in DX9 titles and from all indications it will be faster than the GTX, and probably the Ultra, in DX10 games like Crysis (from the developers THEMSELVES, the R600 is faster than the GTX in Crysis)

Link please??

http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview...STARTPAGE=20&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

The 2900XTX is 4fps in front of the 8800GTX ( in average ) in Crysis ( information directly from a developer of the game )